Hi, I tried to modify your picture, but Illustrator CS4 can not open your picture; Inkscape can open, but when I upload the file that modified by Inkscape, wikimedia return 404 error, so I have to modify from my orginial file this time. Could you tell me which software you use to edit the picture? thanks! Tnds (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I read that you are astonished about file sizes of Inkscape generated pictures. I am drawing SVG just for a short time, but I have learned a lot, and if you like you may participate of that knowledge.

It is not at all difficult to draw images manually, especially if they consist only of simple elements. A good example is the versions history File:Iching-hexagram-64.svg how to make files smaller.

All the 97 files in Category:Unicode Geometrics SVG I have drawn manually with a simple text editor in February, and one month later a knew better how to reduce the file size of each of these pictures, from some 20 to many hundred bytes, by better use of SVG elements.

If you are interested in this, I shall give you any aid and explanation you need or want. Something you may find at SVG_examples, and a good tutorial is at wikibooks. -- sarang♥사랑 11:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that advice! I will try to experiment with text editors first - the days of using Inkscape to edit simple files (like BSicons) is definitely over for me. NoNews! 14:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Some BSicons contain curved structures, a little bit more complicated, but you will enjoy to solve that all by yourself with small effort, and a twentieth (or so) of the size Inkscape will need. You know how to check SVGs offline? Good success! -- sarang♥사랑 10:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC) (and when you have any question, use my talk page for it)

you have upload several Icons with a new filename. Therefore links need to be changed manually or by bot. CommonsDelinker is not able to do that. I think, this is your job. Please, change the links (eg on zh:WP). Antonsusi (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Newfraferz87, you have tagged a lot of BSicon files for speedy deletion as duplicate. As most of the files are still used on project pages, all these uses (at least those in the namespace) have to be replaced by the newer/better icon version. This is usually done by the CommonsDelinker (CD) bot, which is mandated by the admin who takes care of the requested deletion. However, as BSicon files are mostly used in a way totally different from regular images, the CD cannot replace these uses. This has to be done either manually or by a specialized bot. Therefore, I would ask you to replace all uses of the BSicons, that you had tagged for deletion, by the newer/better icon version.

Err, so you are asking me to upload the newer versions of the file(s) directly to the old file name(s)? That is possible too, though it will be troublesome based on what has already been done.

Just a note, my original intention was to (request for) move the old file names to the new file names and THEN upload the newer versions of the file, thus creating a redirect link at the old file names. However, after some time waiting, I simply got impatient and started uploading the newer files. If there are any major problems caused, I will gladly make reparations. NoNews! 23:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

so you are asking me to upload the newer versions - no, no. The old files, that you want to replace by the newer/better ones, are still in use on a lot of pages. Most of these uses have to be replaced manually, as the CD is unable to perform this, as explained above. I am asking you to do these use-replacements. Only thereafter the then-unused files can be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to replace those on Commons only, or should that be extended to that on all languages of the Wikipedia? NoNews! 09:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

All uses over all Wikimedia projects that will be listed when you click on Usage or GlobalUsage on the respective image page. See, for example, [1] for the first image in the above list. Of course, some uses may be on protected userpages. If you have no access to such pages, then write a substitution note on the respective user talkpage, so that the user can replace it by himself. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we not just redirect those old file pages to the new ones? This will temporary solve the problem, and we can worry about the renaming later. NoNews! 23:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically this would be possible, I think. However, your BSicon-colleague User:Antonsusi strongly discouraged this because with this it would be even more difficult to keep track of these icons. That is not an authoritative statement, of course. But you might discuss this with a few other users involved in BSicons, such as Axpde. --Túrelio (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Newfraferz87, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.

Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.

Hi New, what's the name of the file this icon was replaced by? Need this to delete the old one! axpdeHello! 09:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually there's currently no new file to replace this one yet, but based on the structure of the icon, I think that there may not be much use of it (having an unused railway track crossing covered by an unused metro station and track, with a linkway to its left) and overlaying will do if such a configuration is really required. No pages (except a user page of User:AlisonW's) uses the file, so I transferred it from "obsolete" to "delete candidate". It is also difficult to find a good name for it, given the "CPICl" body. NoNews! 14:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well then would you file a deletion request? If there's no intervention I'll delete it later on. There's a big talk about "speedy deletes" going on, don't wanne abuse this by deleting a file without a valid speedy reason or an ordinary deletion request. ;-) axpdeHello! 16:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this [2]. I don't know why these requests are not added to the correct category, but aparently they were looked over for the past six months. I don't think the suggested names will do. Please let me know if you have any better name suggestions. If not I think it is best to leave the images as they are and remove the rename template. I posted a similare message at User talk:Axpde. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Today you requested renames of amongst others File:BSicon utACCa.svg. You are a filemover yourself. Why did you ask for a rename (without specifying a reason btw) instead of doing it yourself? And secondly, why have you not responded to my question above? -- Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for these files, it is not possible for CommonsDelinker to rename them, because they are usually embedded in railway description templates as icons. As a result, it is necessary to make manual edits to all the articles that use such files globally before the file is renamed. The reason I add the template is to make it obvious which are the files that need to be renamed and have all its links changed to the new name. I hope this answers your questions. NoNews! 08:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That part is clear. Could you please add this info to the rename request so admin and file-movers know what is going on? Also, this file File:BSicon TurmHST.svg and several others have the template on them since september 2010. Does it really take that long to rename? Taketa (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've done literally thousands of manual icon fixes in over a hundred different projects. Yes, it takes so long to rename. Maybe I would have been faster to lear how to code a bot to do it for me, but unfortunaly we can't even expect to have the icon ID surrounded by '|' (some add a tabulator, some forget the pipe before closing the template via '}}' ...). axpdeHello! 20:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, nice job, I wasn't really aware of this missing section in the Chinese Railway catalog, considering that I was mainly just replacing some of the old templates on the pages. Will see what I can work on. Thanks for the help! NoNews! 02:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I’ve been playing the BSicon game for long enough to know how to name files. The rule that says a double line across should not have a v preffix nor a q suffix is completely wrong w.r.t. the rest of the naming system and the only thing that’s keeping it to be sent to the wastebin is that the the existence of icons which were thus named. I and others who are against that unfortunate naming rule will not use for new uploads, but will not rename existing files sensibly into vNAMEq because we believe that the matter should be rediscussed. Kindly do the same, so that when said discussion takes place we wont be faced with the argument that «Yeah it’s a dumb naming rule, but there’s a gazzilion files named using it.» -- Tuválkin✉✇ 01:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you checked, I didn't request to move these icons outright at the start; I filed for duplication because there was already an existing set (KRZv) by User:Imperator3733 (who created the other ue, ux and uex variants). But an admin messed it up and deleted the ones in the completed set (KRZv) instead, so I requested to rename the vKRZq set back into the KRZv set, such that the latter would be complete and it would be coherent with the rest of the files named - by that, I mean from the catalog on the English Wikipedia. In essence there was only a minority of files: vKRZq, evKRZq, xvKRZq, exvKRZq, uvKRZq and vKRZtq.

Even I was renaming files into the wrong naming system, I was still trying to coordinate these files into one system, as it was just the few of them that did not comply with it. If you are concerned about the number of articles using it, there were only a minute few aside from pictogram catalogues.

Awaiting your reply before we decide what to do with exvKRZq and uvKRZq. NoNews! 02:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing new to add. And, no I’m not concerned with the nunber of articles, I’m concerned with having logical, easily parsable file names. The Catalog of Pictograms should reflect the fact that there ios a divergent practice in filenameing (as it does for other such divergences), not be a reason to harmonize filenames according to a naming rule which is not consensual. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 02:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We could always raise this issue back up again in the discussion page to discuss what the proper naming scheme should be, of course.

The problem I forsee would be that, because of how the vKRZq icons stand out in their unique nomenclature against similar icons (consider (uvKRZq) and (uexKRZv), it would just be a matter of time before other editors start uploading other icons (including over redirects) to "complete the set" (be it for vKRZq or KRZv), resulting in duplications.

In lieu of that, my current stand would be to coordinate everything into one system, especially because there are only a few icons outside that system right now, and they are not well-used (unlike the CONT fiasco involving half of the system's icons and hundreds of pages). But I would gladly yield to resolutions from collective discussions. NoNews! 02:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

With regard to this edit: I never understood this table, nor its purpose. As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing can be deep-sixed. After all, don't the Catalogs provide the same function, in a more understandable manner? Useddenim (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Having those prefixes there is a legacy of the past, and the current list is long outdated without the presence of newer features (INT, ÜST, legende, elevations). I'm not particularly sure of the links to the specific icon prefix/roots though, that one can be moved to a separate subpage if necessary.

In my opinion the BSicon page itself would be the place to collate: (1) guidelines with regards to searching for existing icons, uploading new icons and nomenclature rules; (2) links to the icon catalogs, plus a list of the basic roots if necessary; (3) links to discussion pages and WikiProject BSicon. Hence the entire en:wp icon catalog introduction page can actually be moved there to facilitate on-site updates (though this can be up for further discussion first). The main RDT page on the guide to using the BS templates can remain on Wikipedia. ~NewfitzYo! 14:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you have uploaded File:ElectoralCollege2016.svg and placed a notice stating that is the map we should use for results (I have removed that notice). However, File:Electoral College 2016.svg has been the de facto presidential map since 2013 and already has hundreds of links to pages; it would be difficult and pointless to change all those links when we already have a perfectly fine map. MB298 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I am sticking to File:ElectoralCollege2016.svg for file name coherency purposes, following the file name of all previous years' election results (ElectoralCollegeXXXX), just as (Electoral_College_XXXX) refers only to the change in Electoral votes as compared to the previous election (see this one, for example).

With regards to links, aside the translanguage infoboxes, most of the links are derived from this template, so that unfortunately explains why there seems to be hundreds of them. A possible solution would be to edit File:ElectoralCollege2016.svg to omit the candidates' names and colorbox for the time being, and then switch the image (on that template) to this one. (I have already tried sending a command to Commons Delinker to replace the links on all Wikipedia articles, but I'm not sure if it would work.) How about that? ~NewfitzYo! 07:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!